Ball State to review atheism course

Oct 2, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: WLFI-TV West Lafayette

Ball State University's president said it is reviewing a course that a group advocating the teaching of intelligent design maintains is promoting atheism.

Comments
1 - 20 of 49 Comments Last updated Oct 15, 2013
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Sep 10

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

As I just posted on that site, though it will probably be censored:

----------

First off, there is no such thing as "intelligent design". Those who promote that crap are hardcore fundy christards, the same idiots who got laughed out of a Pennsylvania courtroom. Their lies were exposed there, and no one should ever listen to them.

Second, creationist "think tank" is an oxymoron about morons. A septic tank would be a more apt description, given that their minds are buried in the filth of religion.

Third, promoting ignorance as "fact" is most definitely a dangerous idea. If religion had any merit, it would be able to demonstrate and repeat its claims on call at any time. The religitards should put up or shut up, but are too gutless to do the former and too dishonest to do the latter.

Fourth, anyone who acts as if the religious nuts should be taken seriously isn't smart enough to be a journalist. No doubt the idiot who wrote it (he writes for AP, so he is an idiot) went to a "journalism school" instead of getting a proper education.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Oct 3, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

2

P_Smith wrote:
As I just posted on that site, though it will probably be censored
Actually this linky's even better:

http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...

The DI shove their boots right in it with their rants and dispel any reasonable doubt that they aren't creationists. Always knew Johnny West was good for something. And then there's the added bonus of them destroying the world's supply of irony meters by claiming it's illegal to promote atheism in schools while they simultaneously push for IDCreationism whenever and wherever they can in states all over the country, and have been for decades.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Oct 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually this linky's even better:
http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/art...
The DI shove their boots right in it with their rants and dispel any reasonable doubt that they aren't creationists. Always knew Johnny West was good for something. And then there's the added bonus of them destroying the world's supply of irony meters by claiming it's illegal to promote atheism in schools while they simultaneously push for IDCreationism whenever and wherever they can in states all over the country, and have been for decades.
Never give up on your irony meters dude. Keep lying about the burden of proof you halfwit. No response is necessary,

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Oct 6, 2013
 
I said no response is necessary you tw*t.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Oct 6, 2013
 
I bet the responds- the tw*t is like nuggin! he can't let anything go. Especially the Eden of proof (which he doesn't understand, knows this and tried to cover up for it in the past)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Oct 6, 2013
 
Eden = burden

Still no response required dude, you're done now.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Yep, I'm done. Because I slaughtered you years ago. (shrug)

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
Yep, I'm done. Because I slaughtered you years ago.(shrug)
Spoken like a theist.

You still don't understand the burden of proof, but its better for your mental illness to think you've one, because the truth is clearly unbearable to you.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

To spell it out, The Dude believes that its atheist job to disprove god, instead of theists job to prove it.

This is why he is a dishonest asshat who couldn't think his way out of a room even with a neon exit sign above its door.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

He tries to speak for atheists, but just keeps embarassing himself.

Especially after his buddy troll Nuggin left with his tail between his legs for being a similar asshat.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Oct 7, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

4

-Skeptic- wrote:
To spell it out, The Dude believes that its atheist job to disprove god, instead of theists job to prove it.
This is why he is a dishonest asshat who couldn't think his way out of a room even with a neon exit sign above its door.
The burden of proof always lies upon the person making a positive claim. So it is unnecessary for an atheist to disprove the existence of God, it is necessary for theist to prove that their god exists.
For example "Skeptic' is clearly a Christian. Has he ever posted any evidence that Zeus does not exist? How about Odin, or even Thor? There are probably millions of gods that people have worshiped. According to Skeptic's logic he has to prove that all of those millions do not exist.
Well, you better get busy bou.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
Spoken like a theist.

You still don't understand the burden of proof, but its better for your mental illness to think you've one, because the truth is clearly unbearable to you.
Projection.
-Skeptic- wrote:
To spell it out, The Dude believes that its atheist job to disprove god, instead of theists job to prove it.
Wrong. I have repeatedly stated very clearly and concisely numerous times over that it's the job of the person making the positive claim to back it up. Hence any theists claiming to have evidence of God I have demanded they present it. Similarly any fundamentalist atheists who have claimed that God has been falsified I have also demanded they provide evidence. In this case it would be you who is unable to back yourself up.

The reason is simple - God is a non-falsifiable and therefore not scientific. You have claimed to have performed scientific testing that have falsified this previously non-falsifiable concept. I want to know what those tests are.

However since you ARE a moon-landing denier who also denies the existence of lizards (all still on record by the way) I doubt you will get anywhere now the same you haven't the past year or two.
-Skeptic- wrote:
This is why he is a dishonest asshat who couldn't think his way out of a room even with a neon exit sign above its door.
Of the two of us I have not lied.
-Skeptic- wrote:
He tries to speak for atheists, but just keeps embarassing himself.

Especially after his buddy troll Nuggin left with his tail between his legs for being a similar asshat.
I couldn't care less about atheism. It's simply not relevant to science. It's important to you because you are a fundamentalist atheist. A rare breed perhaps, but not mythical. Also it's not just Nuggin who has pointed out your continued error, but Sub-D, Chimney, Katydid, Kong, Dogen - these people are not known for their ignorance, and the only ones who think otherwise are fundies. But nobody takes fundies seriously.

Which is why no-one should take you seriously.

Remember at any time you are allowed to address the actual content of my posts. You haven't for near two years, but there's always a first time...
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
...Wrong.
Really?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>

I have repeatedly stated very clearly and concisely numerous times over that it's the job of the person making the positive claim to back it up. Hence any theists claiming to have evidence of God I have demanded they present it. Similarly any fundamentalist atheists who have claimed that God has been falsified I have also demanded they provide evidence. In this case it would be you who is unable to back yourself up.
Not quite. It seems reasonable to argue that the absense of evidence of pixies is sufficient proof that they are mere superstition and should be seen as such. Saying that anyone claiming pixies don't exist is 'fundamentalist' is disingenuous or simply muddled thinking.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The reason is simple - God is a non-falsifiable and therefore not scientific. You have claimed to have performed scientific testing that have falsified this previously non-falsifiable concept. I want to know what those tests are.
...
So Abrahamic gods and all these....
http://www.godchecker.com/
may quite reasonably be regarded as nothing more than superstitions and to regard them as anything more requires scientific evidence.

There's no more proof of any god so far defined than of pixies.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Oct 8, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
However since you ARE a moon-landing denier who also denies the existence of lizards
Weak and cowardly liar who resorts to shameless lies when cornered for his illogic. Does not understand the burden of proof lies upon the person that chooses to lie about god being real.

Does not understand why scientists are atheists yet tries to speak for both - you're full of sh*t and your stupid qccusation above is proof.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Really?
<quoted text>Not quite. It seems reasonable to argue that the absense of evidence of pixies is sufficient proof that they are mere superstition and should be seen as such. Saying that anyone claiming pixies don't exist is 'fundamentalist' is disingenuous or simply muddled thinking.
<quoted text>So Abrahamic gods and all these....
http://www.godchecker.com/
may quite reasonably be regarded as nothing more than superstitions and to regard them as anything more requires scientific evidence.
There's no more proof of any god so far defined than of pixies.
Hey Edsed, just doing some cleaning - I noticed this piece of sh*t was still lying around...it's called the dude...
EdSed

Wishaw, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Oct 8, 2013
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Edsed, just doing some cleaning - I noticed this piece of sh*t was still lying around...it's called the dude...
I know Skeptic, you've been as obnoxious me in the past.

Sorry you feel it's best to be so rude and unpleasant as I think it tends to discredit and embarrass us as a group (e.g Brits &/or atheists).

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Oct 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Really?
<quoted text>Not quite. It seems reasonable to argue that the absense of evidence of pixies is sufficient proof that they are mere superstition and should be seen as such. Saying that anyone claiming pixies don't exist is 'fundamentalist' is disingenuous or simply muddled thinking.
<quoted text>So Abrahamic gods and all these....
http://www.godchecker.com/
may quite reasonably be regarded as nothing more than superstitions and to regard them as anything more requires scientific evidence.
There's no more proof of any god so far defined than of pixies.
That is correct. There is no more logical reason to believe in a god than there is to believe in pixies. But if it is not pixies then why can't I find my glasses the morning after I consume only a fifth or two of vodka? Huh!? Explain that!!

Seriously there is of course no evidence for either and therefore no logical reason to believe in either. If a fool like Skeptic wants to claim that god exists it is up to him to prove it. Until then I will trust what the world tells me.

Of course I do have to agree with The Dude that we have not disproved the existence of god, but then there is no more need for us to do that than there is a need for us to disprove pixies.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Oct 9, 2013
 
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>I know Skeptic, you've been as obnoxious me in the past.
Sorry you feel it's best to be so rude and unpleasant as I think it tends to discredit and embarrass us as a group (e.g Brits &/or atheists).
I agree, but hey shoot the message not the messenger as they say...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Oct 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is correct. There is no more logical reason to believe in a god than there is to believe in pixies. But if it is not pixies then why can't I find my glasses the morning after I consume only a fifth or two of vodka? Huh!? Explain that!!
Seriously there is of course no evidence for either and therefore no logical reason to believe in either. If a fool like Skeptic wants to claim that god exists it is up to him to prove it. Until then I will trust what the world tells me.
Of course I do have to agree with The Dude that we have not disproved the existence of god, but then there is no more need for us to do that than there is a need for us to disprove pixies.
I think you might have problems with reading comprehension.

There's no such thing as god until the liars that choose to lie about it present evidence.

I'm not claiming there's a god, I'm merely stating the conclusion of the evidence so far - anyone who talks about god being real, is a liar, pure and simple, until evidence is presented that proves it isn't bollocks.

The very definition of god is flawed because it doesn't refer to anything real in the first place, so its messed up from the beginning.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Oct 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>Really?
Yes, he said I believe something that I do not so I corrected him and clarified my position.
EdSed wrote:
Not quite. It seems reasonable to argue that the absense of evidence of pixies is sufficient proof that they are mere superstition and should be seen as such. Saying that anyone claiming pixies don't exist is 'fundamentalist' is disingenuous or simply muddled thinking.
Not really, since I pointed out how the scientific method works. Skippy's claim is NOT that there is a mere lack of evidence for (a) God, but that the concept had been FALSIFIED. It's not possible to falsify non-falsifiable concepts. If you HAVE a way to test for the existence of God(s) then let us know. The fundies haven't been able to come up with one for thousands of years so I doubt you will either.
EdSed wrote:
So Abrahamic gods and all these....
http://www.godchecker.com/
may quite reasonably be regarded as nothing more than superstitions and to regard them as anything more requires scientific evidence.
There's no more proof of any god so far defined than of pixies.
That's nice. Nor have I disputed this. You DID actually READ my post, did you not?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

8 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Introducing The Universal Religion 30 min nanoanomaly 735
Our world came from nothing? 1 hr Reason Personified 247
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 2 hr Aura Mytha 224,514
What does "Atheism" mean? 7 hr Patrick 34
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 8 hr Patrick 395
How much faith it takes to believe in Evolution. 9 hr religionisillness 19
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 10 hr Growupchildren 21,401
•••
•••